Ken Merrick has asked us to post the following Errata/Addenda sheet on his behalf for Volume Two of Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings. Ken also regrets that he is not able to engage in any further communication on this or to answer individual emails. Further periodic updates will be posted and and when they become available.

ERRATA – Volume One

Chapter 5Page 86 – Lower caption. The Ju 88 identified is not the one recovered from the sea (Ju 88 A-5 W.Nr. 0886146) but instead Ju 88 C-2 W.Nr. 0881033 recovered from a Norwegian mountain site where it had remained exposed to extreme weather conditions for around 50 years. The reference to the effectiveness of the anodised internal finish remains just as pertinent.

Chapter 7Page 156 – Bottom photograph. Caption should include the aircraft’s Werknummer of 10639. This is the aircraft now displayed at RAF Museum. Hendon.

Appendix APage 200 – Paragraph two; line 8. After "….63 and 65 lower surfaces." add, "(In all Sweden eventually would receive 40 Ju 86s from Germany)."
Page 200 – Paragraph two, line 12. After "… the Swedish order." add, "The Hungarian order was eventually increased to 66, 63 of which are known to have been delivered as bombers, with the remaining three possibly supplied in transport configuration. Austria received three Ju 86s, but all were returned to Junker’s Dessau plant before the Anchluß."

Page 202 - last paragraph. "In 1942, Germany also honoured an export agreement with Turkey for the supply of 75 Fw 190 A-3 aircraft, which were delivered in standard Luftwaffe camouflage of the period."ERRATA - Volume Two

Introduction. Page 230 -Paragraph Two – From line 7, commencing "Included with this volume are…" text is a repeat of the opening of following paragraph.

Chapter 10
Page 251 – Top caption, should read in part, "…’White 4’ marking identifying it as 7. Staffel, III. Gruppe…" (not "4 Staffel"). Further, the reference to the aircraft in the foreground as "..the Gruppen Adjutant’s aircraft…" is ambiguous. It was not intended to imply that it was the Gruppen Adjutant’s aircraft of III. Gruppe, but rather ‘a Gruppen Adjutant’s aircraft’, as indicated by the lack of ‘sine wave’ form of III. Gruppe marking (poor syntax on my part).

Chapter 13Page 319 – The caption, as printed, applied to two photographs of this aircraft, the photograph inadvertently deleted from the book showing the code "6X" marked in white outline form as noted in the existing caption. The "X" can just be discerned in the existing photograph, in the shadow of the crew member standing on the ground.

Chapter 17Page 361 - Captions to diagrams at bottom of page are reversed.

Chapter 17Page 370 – Last paragraph. Reference the comment, quote,"Photographs show the same four-letter code, TS+MA, applied to several aircraft, Bf 109s and Fw 190s…" is incorrect. The TS+MA codes appeared only on two Fw 190s, not on any Bf 109s.

Appendix HPage 433 - top right photograph, aircraft type misidentified as "Ju 88". Delete existing caption and replace with the following;
"Me 410, Werknummer 130378, demonstrates the very low position used on this type for marking of the Werknummer, the location being common to most Messerschmitt fighter aircraft. However, the size of the numerals as shown here, was larger than those normally seen on the type. The relatively low positioning of the Hakenkruez marking was another characteristic of the Me 410 tail markings."

I have read with interest the list of corrections submitted by or on behalf of Ken Merrick referring to the two volunes of his latest publication on Luftwaffe Camouflage & Markings. I have to conclude from that list that my earlier post of March 30th referring to a photo on page 251 of Vol. 2 has obviously passed unnoticed or was ignored as irrelevant. I want to still take the liberty to point out that in spite of the new version offered in the errata list I hold my remarks in my earlier posting as valid and correct.

Ken has asked me to post the following comments regarding the Errata/Addendum to his camouflage and markings books:

"Richard Eger has kindly brought to my attention that the draft Errata/Addendum for the two volumes has been prematurely released. A fully corrected document is to be released, in about four weeks time as checking for errors and additions is still continuing, via several sources. Would everyone please disregard the current document.

Regarding Dr Prien's additional comments, I want to assure him that his points are indeed valued and were to be addressed under the ongoing corrections in the draft document, relating to the relevant caption "Chapter 10, Page 251...."